Report: Robin Williams Was Troubled By Financial Woes After Two Divorces

[Cali_Democrat]

<...>

Williams was preoccupied with his money woes prior to his suicide — and frustrated at taking parts just for the cash, RadarOnline reported Tuesday.

The comedian, after two pricey divorces, was upset that he needed work to insure his family’s future financial security, a family friend told RadarOnline.

“All he could talk about were serious money troubles,” the friend told the website about a recent chat with Williams. “There were clearly other issues going on and Robin sounded distant during the telephone conversation.”

“There was also frustration that Robin expressed at having to take television and movie roles he didn’t want to take, but had to for the paycheck,” the family friend said.

In an interview last year, Williams typically made a joke when asked if he lost all his money in his two divorces.

<...>

“It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/robin-williams-troubled-financial-problems-report-article-1.1900580

[GOLGO 13]

1. Radar Online you say?

In before the lock.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Is Radar Online not reliable?

[uppityperson]

6. No. eom

[MADem]

8. The Mail and other publications have covered this in detail. He was FACING BANKRUPTCY.

Apparently, though, we're not allowed to mention it on DU, which has constructed a narrative and doesn't want new or differing information, it would seem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723374/He-facing-bankruptcy-As-haunting-details-final-night-revealed-did-money-troubles-tip-comedy-genius-Robin-Williams-edge.html

[uppityperson]

24. Those tabloids also published photos of aliens golfing with presidents

[Earth_First]

29. Wait a dog gone minute!

You mean the photographs of Clinton at Camp David with the Samsquantch are fabricated?!

[MADem]

37. And you're going to post a link to that, to back up your claim, of course.

I'd really like to see that picture in the Times of London....but I'll take the one you'll post from the source upthread.

[Iggo]

2. Radar Online lies.

Maybe this time. Maybe not this time. But they fucking lie.

[exboyfil]

4. You do not have an obligation to support

your adult children to a lifestyle which they have become accustomed to (not saying that is what happened in this case just a general statement).

It sounds like he tried to take on too much. I wonder how many hands out actually tried to offer a hand up when he was down. You would have some obligation to his former wives, but I wonder if too much was expected.

[MADem]

9. He wasn't supporting his chidren. He was supporting his EX WIVES.

He had no money coming in. He just lost his job and he was relying on that series money to keep going.

He had already set up trusts for his kids, who are adults. They got/are to get three payments, at 21, 25 and 30. Those trusts have nothing to do with his money problems.

He had an enormous house that he paid thirty five million for in Napa that he could no longer afford. It's been on the market for two years, he lowered the price to take a five million dollar hit on the thing, and it still hasn't sold.

He made some jokes about doing pictures for the money--but he wasn't joking. The guy was broke.

Who in their right mind would sign up to do a "Doubtfire 2" but for the money?

[exboyfil]

20. He placed a "sizeable" chunk of

his net worth into those trusts.

While Williams’ net worth has been estimated at $130 million, TMZ reported that he plowed a sizeable chunk of his money into a 2009 trust for his three kids: Zachary, now 31, and half-siblings Zelda, 25, and Cody, 22. Terms of the trust gave them each one-third of their shares when they turned 21, another third at 25 and the remainder at age 30.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/12/robin-williams-divorces-left-the-star-strapped-for-cash/

I see that as supporting his adult children. They did contribute to his money problems. If those assets had remained liquid and under his control he certainly would have had more flexibility in his finances.

[MADem]

32. He did that when he was in clover.

He set up the trusts and regarded them as money well spent. I wouldn't be surprised if his financial planners told him to do that to shield the money from requests by the exes for additional funds.

He had to split his wealth with his first wife after ten years, and his second wife after twenty more. He set up that trust before he married number three.

That wasn't yesterday, that was five years ago (maybe even longer for at least one of the kids). And it was HIS choice to do that --by all accounts, he adored his children and the feeling was mutual. It was his divorces--and the alimony he agreed to--that were strapping him. He was trying to sell that house in Napa and it wasn't moving (very nice house, too--looks like an Italian villa with a beautiful pool).

From your very own link:

The comic shelled out $20 million to $30 million to ex-wives Valerie Velardi and Marsha Garces, according to reports.
Although Velardi signed a prenup, she scored at least $50,000 a month for life when they split in 1988, a Hollywood insider told The Post.
Court records also show Williams paid Velardi more than $518,000 in 1989 from a profit-sharing plan administered by accounting firm Joel Faden and Co. of Manhattan.

Keep in mind that Velardi, who got fifty grand a MONTH, was the first wife, and who had one child with him, who was left by Williams when he took up with the nanny. The nanny was the second wife, who was with him for 19 years and with whom he had two kids. One has to figure that Number Two probably getting as much if not more than Number One. That's a big outlay, no matter if you are a big Hollywood star.

[AngryAmish]

5. If you make more money than your partner marriage is really, really stupid.

You need a bulletproof prenup. Otherwise you are gonna get hurt.

[MADem]

17. He was still with his 3rd wife.

It was the first two that were expensive. CA is a community property state.

He recently sold a smaller house (classified as a pied a terre but it's really a regular person's house but a very nice, high end regular person's house) in LA. He was, as he said, "downsizing."

http://variety.com/2014/dirt/real-estalker/robin-williams-sells-l-a-pied-a-terre-1201237736/

[LeftyMom]

7. Radar Online and the Daily News? What, is TMZ down?

[MADem]

10. Maybe these will suit.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article4174735.ece

http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/279749-he-was-facing-bankruptcy-as-haunting-details-of-his-final-night-are-revealed-did-money-troubles-tip-comedy-genius-robin-williams-over-the-edge.html

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/robin-williams-faced-serious-money-troubles-before-death/story-fn907478-1227022441696

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11029799/Robin-Williams-had-serious-money-troubles-before-his-death.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/robin-williams-was-suffering-health-and-money-problems/story-fnb64oi6-1227022808410?nk=4d6a44b53aad8b99c938b20b8128a0ca

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/robin-williams-left-children-trust-4041103

[Ms. Toad]

44. Reports which use Radaronline

as the source of their information aren't really distinct sources from radaronline. (The first article would not display, one very brief article cited unnamed reports as the source of an emerging picture of financial woes, a third talked about his trusts (which you have said aren't the issue) citing Fox news as its source). The rest all expressly got their information from radaronline.

[MADem]

46. I think you're mistaken.

Some of those articles are citing Parade Magazine http://parade.condenast.com/153682/dotsonrader/guess-whos-back-on-tv-robin-williams-returns-in-the-crazy-ones/ and the actor's very own words about his financial issues. The trusts, too, aren't a "Fox News" thing--they are a matter of public record. As are the divorce settlements.

More "straight from the horse's mouth" quotes can be found in this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722409/Tributes-Robin-Williams-dead-apparent-suicide.html

It's pretty obvious, that if he's paying the first wife fifty thousand a month in alimony, that the second wife was probably getting as much or more. I think he had cash flow problems. Perhaps if his Napa villa had sold, some of the pressure would have been taken off him. But to suggest that finances were not an issue is not born out by the actor's OWN words. No one is saying this is the only reason he took his own life, but if it didn't impact his decision at all, I'd be very surprised. Of course, we can't ask him--he's dead and apparently he did not leave a note.

I don't understand, really, why there are so many complaints about the simple truth that this guy was overextended. HE said so, and complete strangers to him are taking issue with this for some curious reason. He had two ex-wives, he paid a mistress seven million after a lawsuit (how much did the lawyers get, one wonders?). These things aren't secrets. The pushback is a bit curious, frankly. I rather doubt the Times of London, the Telegraph, and even the tabloidy Mirror, as well as all the Aussie papers, the BBC and other electronic media, and everyone who was awake while this side of the world slept, would say such a thing if it were spun from whole cloth.

[Ms. Toad]

53. I was responding to the fact that you provided additional articles

to back up facts in the complained about source, which cited to the complained about source for where they got their facts. Of the 5 which recite the same facts, one I can't get to one because it requires a subscription; another is very brief and cites to developing stories. The remaining 3 use radaronline as their source for the facts you are trying to prove.

I don't know whether the stories are correct or not. But I do know that if what you are trying to prove is that what XYZ is reporting is true, you can't get there by providing other articles which explicitly say they got their facts from XYZ (or which don't cite any sources at all).

[MADem]

78. Well, not to repeat myself overmuch, but Williams is QUOTED in

those articles. And Parade Magazine isn't a tabloid--it's an insert to broadsheet papers across the nation.

Those quotes were published while Williams was alive--if they misrepresented his circumstances, surely he would have demanded a retraction.

[Ms. Toad]

81. I wasn't responding to the substance -

just the usefulness of using a source which quotes XYZ as its source to prove that XYZ is valid. (And, without going back to double check, I don't think Parade magazine was in the original list.)

[MADem]

93. Parade was cited in some of the sources.

Somewhere in this thread, there's a direct link to Parade, and the cited quotes attributed to Parade are accurate.

[blueamy66]

11. Why do people lose money through divorce?

I just don't get it.

My divorce cost me $50.

We split everything...even the $ from the sale of the house.

If you loved someone enough to have children with them, you should be adult enough to be civil.

[MADem]

14. California is a community property state. He had three wives.

Also, you can be "real estate rich" and cash poor. It happens. Those taxes don't pay themselves, and big houses require big maintenance.

[blueamy66]

26. Okay....

Sell the house....split the difference....she can get a job to take care of herself

[MADem]

27. The first two wives already had legal agreements that included alimony.

Or, as he called it "all the money." Those agreements aren't negotiable, generally.

He sold one house in LA for just under a million--that was just a bolthole, "only" two bedrooms and one and a half baths--a few months ago, but the "big house" that he bought in Napa for 35 million has been on the market for a couple of years, and he recently lowered the price to a loss-taking 29 million. He was living in yet another house, in Tiburon, CA--a rather nice property but not all that ostentatious.

He had no problems with the third wife, that we know of, anyway. She was "in recovery" too apparently, so they had that in common.

He had set up trusts for his kids, and his money issues didn't affect those trusts.

[blueamy66]

28. And I agree...it was "all the money"...

Those ex wives need to get jobs. They helped him with his depression.

[MADem]

34. Well, I don't know about Number 2, but he wasn't a saint to Number One.

Number Two was the NANNY for the kid he had with Number One.

He was also caught cheating with a cocktail waitress. Said waitress sued him because she said he gave her herpes. She won a suit for nearly seven million. Then he went back on the bottle in 03, and that was, reportedly, problematic for the 2nd marriage.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/alcoholism-saw-actor-lose-gifts-that-made-him-a-star-279416.html

Zachery was his first and only child from his first marriage to Valerie Velardi. The couple were married for 10 years and divorced in 1988.

In 1986, Williams was sued by a mistress whom he infected with herpes. He was ordered to pay the woman, a cocktail waitress, $6.7m in damages.

The star then married Zachery’s nanny, Marsha Garces, in early 1989 when Garces was pregnant with his second child, Zelda.

The couple welcomed Cody, Williams’s third child, in 1991. They also worked together on many of Williams’s films in the 1990s; Garces produced 1993’s Mrs Doubtfire.

After 19 years together, Williams and Garces divorced in 2008. His relapse with alcohol while shooting on location in Alaska in 2003 was the beginning of the end for the couple and for his long-term sobriety.

Money is like toilet paper to the rich. They don't realize the value of it until they don't have any of it. Sometimes, it's hard to pare down the old lifestyle to minimum requirements when one is used to living a certain way. In the entertainment industry, everyone has their hand out--it's a downside to success.

[blueamy66]

55. Interesting.

nt

[closeupready]

56. I agree with this. Able-bodied ex-spouses can work, and

it should offset alimony payments.

[Ms. Toad]

45. The community property laws don't require a split of future money -

only wealth accumulated during the marriage.

And - while his money issues would have affected the trusts, his generous funding of the trusts was a contributing factor (if the reports are true that he was having money issues) because they transferred money to his children that otherwise would have been available to meet ongoing financial obligations.

[MADem]

48. He said he was paying alimony. Wife number one was getting fifty grand a MONTH.

They were married for ten years and had one child (who is thirty or so, now).

Wife number two had the other two kids (also now young adults)--she was the nanny to the kid from wife number one. She also was listed as producer on at least one of his pictures.

Before her, there was a cocktail waitress that got herpes and a seven million dollar settlement.

Williams was the one who made the alimony/all-the-money joke. He apparently had deals with the exes that required that he continue to pay them, and pay them a LOT, too. So, you can take up that California law bit with his lawyer, I suppose, but he was paying alimony as well as other percentages of investments.

The trusts were established in 2009 and I would not be surprised if he did that to make certain that his kids had a nest egg in the event that he couldn't keep the balls in the air.

[Ms. Toad]

52. I was responding to your contention that it was non-negotiable

because it was a community property state. The community property laws impact the negotiability of make wealth splitting less - not ongoing alimony payments.

[MADem]

54. Well, the reports are that he paid out tens of millions in

divorce settlements, on TOP of these alimony and other payments.

Not really sure what this sentence means:

The community property laws impact the negotiability of make wealth splitting less - not ongoing alimony payments.

but he made big lump sum payouts AND paid alimony as well. That's why he had to work so hard, to keep up with the bills.

[Ms. Toad]

60. Under community property laws

Property acquire or possessed during marriage is considered community property, and split 50-50. The key word being "property." Income you receive after the marriage ends is your own. So what is (mostly) non-negotiable at divorce time because of community property laws is the property, not ongoing payments.

He may well have been ordered long term payments - but they were not non-negotiable because of community property laws.

I was just clarifying a misunderstanding about community property laws - which you seemed to be using to support the non-negotiability of alimony.

[MADem]

61. I'm trying to tell you that according to every report I have read, he

paid out thirty or forty million in "community property" payments, AND as part of the settlements he paid alimony as well, fifty grand a MONTH to his first wife, who knows how much to his second. There were apparently also investments that earn dividends that the spouse(s) get a piece of, as well.

Two separate things--I understand that. But he was on the hook for both.

I never suggested his alimony was "non-negotiable" -- I don't have that much insight into the details of his divorces beyond what I've read in the newpapers and trades.

[Ms. Toad]

87. Then I must have misunderstood what you meant here:

"The first two wives already had legal agreements that included alimony.

Or, as he called it "all the money." Those agreements aren't negotiable, generally."

(Which was one post below the one in which you suggested that the divorce settlements were driven by CA community property laws.)

I was just trying to clarify that a property split would have been driven by community property laws (and mostly non-negotiable) - but that ongoing alimony payments wouldn't have been.

[sabrina 1]

89. So what happens to the ex wives now?

[blueamy66]

90. Hopefully they will get jobs and pay their own way.

Just don't get it when people think that they are entitled to $ because they married someone.

[sabrina 1]

94. I don't either. I guess they will have to struggle without all that money now.

[MADem]

92. No more golden eggs...?

I really don't know, but I suspect the gravy train has derailed.

If he died without a will, they're out of luck. If he had a will, and didn't name them, they're still out of luck.

[sabrina 1]

95. They can't touch the trust fund I imagine. Hopefully they will not start lawsuits against his estate

but if he left a will and they are not in it, that would be difficult I think. Hard to break a will, and if their agreement didn't include 'after death' it does seem they won't be receiving those big checks anymore.

[uppityperson]

12. So? Even if true, wtf doez it matter?

Yes, the rich and famous can gave money worries? So? A beloved person died and who cares?

Trying to make sense of his death? He suffered for decades fighting depression. Now he is dead. Who the fuck cares about any possibilitynof financial worries, stories of which all seem to trace back to a gossip rag? Wtf.

[MADem]

13. Perhaps you should just trash the thread rather than trying to control the conversation. nt

[uppityperson]

15. Perhaps you should add a caveat "only agreements please", trying to control the conversation.

Ironic that you chastise me, saying I am trying to control the conversation, by telling me to not participate.

[MADem]

16. I am not telling you to not participate--just giving you a suggestion that, to me, appears

preferable to your garbled scolding of the OP.

You can do whatever you'd like. I'm sure you will, too.

[uppityperson]

18. Thank you for insulting me and allowing me to continue to participate on DU.

you are a peach

[MADem]

19. Insulting you?

I'm not the one that spat the "fuck" and WTF at the OP for daring to post an article that you didn't like.

And I didn't "insult" you, either. You wrote this, not me:

uppityperson (85,777 posts)
12. So? Even if true, wtf doez it matter?

Yes, the rich and famous can gave money worries? So? A beloved person died and who cares?

Trying to make sense of his death? He suffered for decades fighting depression. Now he is dead. Who the fuck cares about any possibilitynof financial worries, stories of which all seem to trace back to a gossip rag? Wtf.

Seems a bit rude to me, and that's not an "insult," it is an observation.

[uppityperson]

21. Yet no answers to any of my questions. Did you know DUmoffers a WTF smilie? rude, isn't it.

No answers to any of my questions, just chastising.

[MADem]

22. What questions?

"WTF" isn't viewed as an actual question by most people--it's a rather crude expression of dissatisfaction. Who the fuck cares? That question? Most people would regard that as a rhetorical expression of your dismay at the subject matter. But if you want to be literal, well, plenty of people care, about his life, his death and yes, his money troubles, judging by the number of articles written about the topic.

If you read the full thread, you'll find several other sources that are providing the same information.


Here, let me repost them for you:



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article4174735.ece

http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/279749-he-was-facing-bankruptcy-as-haunting-details-of-his-final-night-are-revealed-did-money-troubles-tip-comedy-genius-robin-williams-over-the-edge.html

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/robin-williams-faced-serious-money-troubles-before-death/story-fn907478-1227022441696

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11029799/Robin-Williams-had-serious-money-troubles-before-his-death.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/robin-williams-was-suffering-health-and-money-problems/story-fnb64oi6-1227022808410?nk=4d6a44b53aad8b99c938b20b8128a0ca

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/robin-williams-left-children-trust-4041103

[uppityperson]

23. Gossip rags, tabloids, not 1 reputable source. All of those I have found say opposite

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2024297864_williamsstrugglesxml.html

I am sorry of you can not recognize a question.

You are unable to 1 reputable source, just gossip rags and tabloids.

You are unable to say who cares or why they should beyond "plenty of people...judging by the number of tabloid articles".

No more kicks, done with you.

[MADem]

30. The Times of London is a tabloid? Who knew?

And of course his lawyer is going to say all was well--that's what lawyers do. Other comments in the very article you cited paint a differing picture, but hey, whatever.

Sadly, his money troubles are over, and he's worth more dead than he was alive, most likely. That happened to Michael Jackson, too.

You have one of those real nice, smilie days, now!

[SidDithers]

39. This post was alerted...

On Wed Aug 13, 2014, 06:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I am not telling you to not participate--just giving you a suggestion that, to me, appears
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5377754

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

THis is rude. MADem gets belligerent (again). No, this isn't the worst abuse on DU, but notive how it derails the thread and MADem makes it all about the poster rather than the issue. This is what makes DU suck, rude posters who engage in unnecessary personal attacks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 13, 2014, 06:14 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope. Not buying it, alerter. To me, this looks like an alert motivated by animosity toward MADem, rather than an honest concern for community standards at DU.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the wrong poster was alerted. I think the poster MADem was responding to was the offensive poster.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LAME ALERT.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It only derails the thread if you keep responding. Just ignore posts you find irritating.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: discussion?

Sid

[MADem]

40. That's not the only one--someone is coming after me because they don't agree with my POV.

That kind of makes DU suck, doncha think?

I wonder who would be so mean-spirited as to do such a thing?

[SidDithers]

41. I don't think it's anyone posting in this thread...

more likely some onlooker who doesn't like you very much.



Sid

[MADem]

42. Well, I certainly hope they'll find a more productive way to occupy their time.

It's tiresome getting alerted on when I've done nothing wrong. It's making DU a very unpleasant place to be. Perhaps that is the goal--to drive me away...?

[exboyfil]

47. As a matter of policy it does matter

Are divorce settlements reasonable? $600K/yr from someone with an irregular income who no longer commands the big bucks? In a relatively high tax state we talking about nearly $1M/yr for the first spouse alone. I don't know if the second spouse received alimony or not or it was just an asset split. If an asset split did Williams have to take on additional debt to cover the equity on property he retained. Perhaps more flexibility needs to happen in divorce courts to more easily reduce obligations when earnings do not keep up with the settlement.

Some things that offend me about divorce settlements are the requirement to still provide for adult children (this is an obligation that married individuals do not have) and to stay in a high income job since loss of that job has to be involuntary to reduce alimony (think of someone whose stress is killing them on a particular job). If a married couple your spouse can't compel you to stay in your current job to maintain a particular lifestyle.

[stopbush]

57. Financial problems are the main cause for divorce and many other things

that make people sour on life.

To leave Mr William's financial difficulties out of the conversation is myopic.

[davidpdx]

25. I believe I had heard something similar from other sources a few months ago

It also didn't help that his show, The Crazy Ones, was canceled. I personally loved the show, but CBS obviously didn't think it was worth renewing.

The problem is when you are rich and famous and get married and then divorced, the spouse is used to a higher level of lifestyle and is usually entitled to enough to maintain that level. One marriage and divorce would have been bad enough, but two. Egads!

[alphafemale]

33. I think the idea that being merely married to a wealthy person

....entitles you to a lavish lifestyle to the rest of your life to be vulgar horseshit.

Maybe if you in somehow contributed greatly to the success, as in supporting someone though medical school, you sould be entitled to compensation for that.

But in no way should an adult person be financially responsible to another adult for life.

That is absurd.

[davidpdx]

35. I'm not saying I agree with it

I'm merely stating that's what happens most of the time.

[MADem]

38. It's an industry in California amongst the entertainment set.

The lawyers make a bundle.

[PowerToThePeople]

43. This

[exboyfil]

50. I agree

Williams was obligated to make nearly $1M/yr just to make payments to the first wife irrespective of how his own income fluctuated. I think California does have it right to split net worth earned during a marriage. Also some transition should happen for someone who helped support an individual while their career was being built.

[blueamy66]

59. I'm stealing "vulgar horseshit"!

I so agree with you.

And to think that financial difficulties do not add to a person's depression is absurd.

[steve2470]

62. I agree nt

[Sunlei]

31. people 'worry' about everything when they are depressed. imo some meds make this worse.

His estate will make billions from the next movies (2 are ready for release)

[MADem]

36. Yes, he will be worth more dead than alive, which is kind of sad.

Some of the films in production will never make it to the screen--he had six or seven in the works. A couple, though, are almost done.

Also, he's done a couple of indies that didn't get much play--I wouldn't be surprised if those hit the Premium TV circuit.

[HipChick]

49. Sleeping in sep bedrooms with 3rd wife?

[MADem]

51. That is not all that uncommon, particularly with rich people with different schedules.

I know a lot of "not rich" people who do it, too.

It's not about not liking each other, it's more to do with different hours, people who like to stay up late vs. early birds, and then there's honking, farting, snoring, that kind of stuff.

When they're feeling frisky, they "visit." It doesn't mean they don't care for one another.

[CreekDog]

64. Jeez, have you posted 50% of the responses in this thread?

and for what?

why on earth is it so important to you that a essentially a tabloid story (yes, NY Daily News and Mercury News gossip columnists basically picked it up verbatim, which is meaningless) is taken seriously and treated as likely the truth?

who falls on their sword for this?

what the heck is wrong with that?

[MADem]

65. Why does it bother you? Why do you even care?

If I happen to show an interest in a thread, that's my business, not yours. Should I begin scrutinizing your interest in topics here? Do you think that's a civil thing to do?

Quite frankly, if my participation in this discussion doesn't appeal to you, you have options that the admins here have quite graciously provided to us all. I think they're probably a better choice than casting aspersions on me because you don't care for my interest in this thread.

And if you think that having a conversation on a discussion board is "falling on one's sword" then I would suggest that you might want to re-prioritize. Or not. Your choice.

[CreekDog]

66. You've made the thread more about your desire to get the story seen as true than the story itself

and look at the story? it's from a tabloid with a bad, bad record.

couldn't you save even half of your comments for a subsequent story (should one occur) where this stuff is actually reliably reported?

again, if your posts were saving the world or taking on a holocaust denier, more power to you.

but this? making sure people believe a tabloid story? what kind of priority is that.

i don't give a sh*t. if you post near half the responses in a thread for that purpose, we are going to discuss your motives. you just deal with it.

[MADem]

67. Why do you keep making comments about me? I've told you there are ways to

avoid seeing that which obviously bothers you--why not avail yourself of those options rather than berating me because you don't like my posts?

Please direct your concern elsewhere--I don't have need of it. Thanks.

[CreekDog]

70. Because you've posted the same thing so many times that you have made the thread about you

you probably should have thought of that after you posted for the 30th or 40th time in the thread.

but then, like many of us, the powers of observation often aren't as good when turned inward.

[MADem]

79. Well, let me post the same thing yet another time--there are ways for you to avoid seeing that

which apparently disturbs you. I would encourage you to avail yourself of those methods to avoid what is distressing you.

The snide commentary you are directing at me reflects more on you than perhaps you realize.

[CreekDog]

84. I'm just pointing out what you're doing

If it's snide to point out what you're doing, perhaps you don't like what you're doing.

[Lex]

58. This is dumb. If everyone with money woes killed themselves . . .

there wouldn't be many people around, would there?
He was fighting depression which typically isn't "caused" by any particular thing.

[TheSarcastinator]

68. so, let me get this straight

You are claiming that bankruptcy and losing a fortune will not exacerbate or increase clinical depression?? I suppose you believe that no life events can exacerbate or increase clinical depression, right? Unemployment, the death of a loved one, divorce, etc, etc: none of these things may contribute to or increase depression, eh, genius???

Well, stop the clocks, it appears we have a real expert in our midst. Perhaps you will be kind enough to list your medical credentials for us so we know exactly how you came by that well informed and deeply considered opinion.

[Lex]

71. You sure put a lot of words in my mouth. Nice job.

But no, if I go back and read my post I SAID NONE OF THOSE THINGS--you went off on a merry little adventure, didn't you, "genius"? So no, you "didn't get this straight."

LOL.

[Lex]

75. "rad" my post again?

You are such a complete FAIL. Go away before you look any dimmer. (Nice edit, btw.)

[TheSarcastinator]

77. Oooh, a typo; you win the Dunning-Kruger Award!

There's no stopping your well informed, expert medical opinion.

In the meantime, try a little education: "Traumatic events such as the death or loss of a loved one, financial problems, high stress, or childhood trauma can trigger depression in some people."

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/basics/causes/con-20032977

But I am SURE you are smarter and better informed than the Mayo Clinic, right?

[Lex]

80. Your awesome link supports my post.

The first four (out of five) causes don't even consider life events.

So I said "He was fighting depression which typically isn't "caused" by any particular thing. The OP says it was money woes. Not typically true.

Now please go away. But thanks for proving me right.

[Lex]

85. Don't call me a liar. I'm sorry your link proves me right.

Go throw a tantrum elsewhere.

[TheSarcastinator]

88. you speak nonsense again

Here, let me explain it to you simply. You said "He was fighting depression which typically isn't "caused" by any particular thing."

The Mayo Clinic, actual EXPERTS, say otherwise, specifically that depression seems to be caused by a VARIETY OF FACTORS, which isn't anywhere close to "not being caused by any particular thing." Do you understand the difference or is that asking too much of you?

Specifically the factors the Mayo Clinic say cause and contribute to depression include genetics, brain chemistry, hormones, and a whole grip of LIFE EVENTS. So in other words, yes, bankruptcy can indeed cause depression according to the experts. You are incorrect and disseminating misinformation.

If there was any need for proof that not only are you uniformed on the topic but unwilling to discuss these things honestly, you chose to attempt to shut criticism down based on nothing but a typo, as if a failure to strike the "e" key has anything to do with the falsity of your position.

And just to drive the nail home even further, here's another source from the BBC. Perhaps you might try to tell me how this one "proves you right"??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/324900.stm

"Whether money is the root of all evil is a moot point, but research has found that it is often the cause of depression.

Slightly more people rated money as a likely cause of depression than a death or illness in the family.

The survey, by the National Depression Campaign, found that financial problems were cited by 88% of people as a trigger for depression.

Eighty-seven per cent agreed that a death or illness in the family could cause problems. "

[Lex]

97. My point is still correct.

And, by the way, your second link is mostly an article about a survey that ask lay people what they thought might have brought on their depression. That's not exactly the same thing.

Good luck to you in your future endeavors.

[TheSarcastinator]

82. really, is that the entire basis of your response??

What deep insight and expertise you display on the subject of clinical depression. Please, I'm sure I am not the only one who would LOVE to hear more from you about how life events do not cause depression.

[Lex]

98. I did not say "life events do not cause depression."

Please slow down and try to read for comprehension.

[steve2470]

63. if Robin was deeply troubled about money....

1- I wish he had gotten therapy for it (if he had not)
2- talk to his lawyer about what could be done ?

I don't know California law, but here in Florida, I was able to go back to court and get my divorce decree modified when my income went down 40%. Courts, in general, are supposed to be about fairness. If your income goes down substantially, I would think most judges would at least consider a modification.

Yes, I know, he could have had absolutely no significant problems, and still killed himself because of his chronic depression. However, money problems don't help matters, at all, especially if one feels trapped.

RIP Robin Williams This death hit me hard, because I was so fond of him.

[bettyellen]

69. I imagine it was tied into feeling he "had to" take crappy jobs as well.

If he was a genereous sort, he may have opted to work work work, instead of haggling over money.

But if you're creative, working on real dreck can be soul crushing, you have to get along with people who you disrespect creatively- and they're often nice people. And he had the added stress of knowing many people would see and judge that work.

[steve2470]

72. excellent points, yes nt

[KamaAina]

74. “Ah, yes, divorce ... "

"from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/ah-yes-divorce-from_the_latin_word_meaning_to_rip/155525.html

Yeah, he went there.

[blueamy66]

91. and having sex

nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

76. Well, I'm willing to bet he had one of the highest salaries on TV for "The Crazy Ones"

Which probably led to it's cancellation. The ratings didn't justify the salary.

[Ex Lurker]

86. Or maybe his depression made his money woes seem worse to him than they actually were nt.

[leftstreet]

100. +1

[redqueen]

101. This. nt

[SoCalDem]

103. Severe depression often causes people to fixate on the miserable parts

of their lives, and reinforces the feelings of hopelessness.

Poor Robin was a talented man who did not "age gracefully". He did it in fits & starts, but always had to go back to the core.....his comedy...but his base group of fans had been aging along with him, and younger people just saw an old guy, trying to be funny.

His latest show was embarrassing for me to watch...I was embarrassed for him

Manic humor is hysterically funny when a young person is good at it, but after we start to know how the person is really suffering from mental illness , it starts to cut too close to the bone

In his later years, when he would fall back into that pattern I always felt sorry for him, because it always seemed to me that this was his auto-pilot schtick, and he was just trying to get through the gig...for the money..

When I had my episode of major depression, I worried about money all the time, and just wanted out...out if all of it.. I was able to turn the corner, because my family & friends were like velcro on steroids, and never left me alone.. I hated it at the time, but they saved my life

[Taitertots]

99. Oh, woe is me. What will I do with my remaining millions

New rule: 0.1%er's don't get to complain about their fortunes.

[davidn3600]

102. If you have money...you need a prenup before you get married

I'm sorry, but that's how it is these days.

If you are both broke or both in debt at marriage, it doesn't matter that much since anything gained during the marriage is likely to be split anyway. But if one person has a lot more money than the other...then you need one.